The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement that seeks to minimize greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere to slow the progress of global warming. Specifically, the goal is to lower emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. A concept of the Protocol includes commitments of the Annex 1 countries, or industrialized countries, as well as from all member countries, aimed toward establishing a reduction in greenhouse gases. More information on the Kyoto Protocol country status can be found here. Another concept is implementation, which outlines the practical methods of how the reductions will be accomplished. Others include accounting and compliance, which provide methods for monitoring emissions, a vision of progress, and cooperation toward achieving the ultimate goal. As of 2009, 181 parties have signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change, which means that an Annex 1 country has the intention to ratify, or agree to limit emissions outlined in the Protocol (UNFCCC, 2008) [1]. So far, 38 countries have already ratified. According to Energy Information Administration, the United States is one of the largest emitters of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels (United States Energy Information Administration, 2005) [2]. The U.S. is also one of the countries that has signed the Protocol, but does not intend to ratify because of the potential detrimental effects to the U.S. economy (The National Center for Public Policy Research, 1997) [3].
Ratification Status
[4] ██ Signed and ratified. ██ Signed, ratification pending. ██ Signed, ratification declined. ██ No position.
Mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is a 'cap and trade' system that allows for emission credit trading between nations. The cap placed on countries is calling for a required 5.2 percent reduction in overall emissions by 2008-12 over the 1990 standards [10]. Opponents of the Kyoto Protocol say that the standards set are unrealistic. However, there are three methods being used to help stimulate green investment and help countries meet their emissions goals in cost-effective ways. These mechanisms include Emissions Trading, Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Implementation (JI), all which contribute to the feeling of a free-market approach for controlling greenhouse gases. The Protocol sets emission reduction goals for each participating party and allots each party a certain number of emissions, or assigned amount units (AAUs).
The emission caps placed on countries are national caps; however some nations choose to place their emission standards on individual industries, such as power plants, to reduce the national emissions. This causes emissions trading to be analogous to a free-market system because it warrants trading of AAUs among countries. If one country has been efficient with its assigned amount of AAUs and has extra to spare, that nation can sell them to other countries in need of AAUs. The high volume of trading also helps keep the cost of AAUs down and allows for price tracking which in turn can help industries plan investments in the emission trading market. Joint Implementation, the second mechanism, is when an Annex I country invests in emission reduction projects in another Annex 1 country, which can ultimately earn the investing country more credits and can be used as a cheaper alternative to reducing domestic emissions. Most JI projects are done in the countries transitioning to a developed economy, where there is an emission reduction requirement. An example of a JI project may involve using a more efficient power plant rather than a coal-fired power plant. Instead of using AAUs, JI projects earn Emission Reduction Units (ERU), which are equivalent to one tonne of CO2 (UNFCCC, 2009) [1]. The third mechanism, Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), allows a country with an emissions limit to implement emissions-reducing projects in developing nations An example of a CDM project proposed by the UNFCC can be a rural electrification using energy-efficient boilers or solar panels (UNFCCC, 2009) [1]. This again can be used as a cheaper alternative to reducing emissions domestically, which can be more expensive in industrialized countries. Countries can earn Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits, also equivalent to one tonne of CO2 and can be used to meet the standards of the Protocol.
Other minor mechanisms in the protocol include Carbon Sinks and Emissions Banking. Carbon Sinks are areas that absorb carbon such as forests. They are beneficial to countries, especially high emitting countries, when calculating emissions because a country can subtract the amount of gas that is absorbed by a carbon sink from its total carbon emission. Countries can also gain credits in their favor by doing things, like planting trees, that add to carbon reduction (EPA, 2000) [6]. Emissions Banking is more beneficial to lower emitting countries because this allows for countries who emit less than the assigned target to bank the excess amount for the next period. This method also gives an alternative to selling excess emission credits through 'cap and trade'. Rules for Developing Countries
The rules and requirements under the Kyoto Protocol for developing countries is different than for that of the developed. There is no set limit of greenhouse gas emissions for the developing countries because they were not the ones contributing to the 150 years of industrial activity that resulted in such high levels of greenhouse gases. Developed countries account historically and currently for the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions, while per capita emissions of developing countries are relatively low (UFCCC, 2008) [1]. Another reason for why there is no set limit for developing nations is because in order for them to increase their quality of life, it is believed they will eventually need more advanced forms of technology resulting in an increase in energy consumption, thus emitting more greenhouse gases. It is believed that this will ultimately allow developing countries to acquire its social and developmental needs.
Although there is no specific emissions reduction standard set for developing nations, the Kyoto Protocol does entail commitments and overall obligations for them to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is known as common but differentiated responsibilities for developing countries (UFCCC, 2008) [1]. One method for developing countries to participate is through the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows developed nations to implement emission-reducing projects in their country. This mechanism serves as synergetic because not only does it help developing nations earn carbon credits for a cheaper price, but it also enables developing nations to utilize new and clean technology that they would normally not have access to otherwise.
The different standards set for both the developed and developing nations by the Kyoto Protocol has initiated controversy, especially in the United States. As mentioned above, the U.S. has signed, but does not intend to ratify the standards of the Protocol. One suggested explanation is the Protocol’s requirement exemption of China, which today is the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases (Brahic, 2007) [4]. President Bush argued that the reduction in greenhouse emissions should be something that deserves “100% effort” and refusal to participate in a “flawed treaty” should not be called “an abdication of responsibility” (Estonia, 2001) [5].
Carbon Tax
A potential alternative to the 'cap and trade' method currently used by the protocol is through a carbon tax. This tax is based on the amount of carbon contained in a fuel such as coal which has the highest carbon amount compared to other fossil fuels [10]. The aim of this tax is to cause less fossil fuel use and hopefully cause an incentive to use other sources of energy. If the carbon tax was implemented it would be gradual and start at a low amount and increase over time to allow better industry and technology to be developed. Some areas such as British Columbia and Quebec as well as Boulder Colorado have already implemented carbon taxes. In Boulder the tax only equates to roughly $1.30 a month showing how minuscule this tax can be [9].
The Carbon Tax Center also lends five primary reasons why a carbon tax could prove more beneficial than the ‘cap and trade’ system being used [8].
1. Predictability – the tax could help predict energy prices which might also help investments in energy efficiency and alternate fuels.
2. Implementation - a carbon tax could be put into use much quicker compared to the legalities that go along with the ‘cap and trade’ method.
3. Understandable – the carbon tax is simpler to understand and may therefore be embraced more by everyday people
4. Lack of Manipulation – special interest groups have less of a chance to manipulate a carbon tax because of its simplicity.
5. Rebates – like other forms of taxes, the carbon tax could be open for rebates to the public Non-compliance and Penalties
Like most things in life, failure to comply with the Protocol carries penalties. If a country does not meet the requirements for measurements and reporting said country looses the privilege of gaining credit through joint implementation projects. If a country goes above its emissions cap, and does not try to make up the difference through any of the mechanisms available, then said country must make up the difference plus an additional thirty percent during the next period [10]. The country could also be banned from participating in the ‘cap and trade’ program.
What the US is doing to reduce CO2 emissions?
While the United States has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it is still working towards a similar goal. In 2003 the Governor of New York, then George Pataki, made contact with other state goverments in the Northeast with the intent of cutting back on carbon emissions. In 2005 seven states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, and New Jersey) signed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) pledging to reduce their carbon emissions. In January 2007 Massachusetts and Rhode Island rejoined after leaving the Initiative mid-conception in earlier years, and then Maryland joined as well later that year.
The Goal of RGGI was to cause all abiding states to reduce stabilize their emissions, through the cap and trade system, by 2015 as compared to a 2002-2004 average. Furthermore, by 2020 that value is to be reduced by 10%. Of these values 50% could be mitigated by purchasing offsets. Although simply stabilizing the number, and then a 10% reduction does not seem large, it is estimated that the overall emission with the program is a 35% decrease when compared to the estimated trends without the program.
On the other side of the country the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) was formed in 2007 for the same reason. Arizona, Montana, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, British Colombia, and Manitoba all entered into the Initiative in 2007 with Ontario and Quebec both joining the following year. Starting in 2012 the program aims to reduce the overall carbon emissions of these states and provinces by 15% in 2020.
In the Midwest, another group of local governments are just now stepping up to solve the carbon crisis. Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois and Kansas, as well as the Canadian province of Manitoba have started an organization set with coming up with their own solution for controlling CO2 emissions that is accordant to their region's needs. Called the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord (MGGA) the program is currently working on setting up the exact rules for emission reduction.
Between these three organizations 23 states and 4 provinces have, or will soon be, making commitments to reduce CO2 emissions, it is beginning to look like a national effort. The federal government isn't completely out of the picture though, on March 25, 2009 the US Department of Transportation issued that it would be giving up to 100 million dollars worth of grant money to State Transportation Departments that develop programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or reduce energy consumption.
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement that seeks to minimize greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere to slow the progress of global warming. Specifically, the goal is to lower emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. A concept of the Protocol includes commitments of the Annex 1 countries, or industrialized countries, as well as from all member countries, aimed toward establishing a reduction in greenhouse gases. More information on the Kyoto Protocol country status can be found here. Another concept is implementation, which outlines the practical methods of how the reductions will be accomplished. Others include accounting and compliance, which provide methods for monitoring emissions, a vision of progress, and cooperation toward achieving the ultimate goal. As of 2009, 181 parties have signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change, which means that an Annex 1 country has the intention to ratify, or agree to limit emissions outlined in the Protocol (UNFCCC, 2008) [1]. So far, 38 countries have already ratified. According to Energy Information Administration, the United States is one of the largest emitters of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels (United States Energy Information Administration, 2005) [2]. The U.S. is also one of the countries that has signed the Protocol, but does not intend to ratify because of the potential detrimental effects to the U.S. economy (The National Center for Public Policy Research, 1997) [3].
[4]
██ Signed and ratified.
██ Signed, ratification pending.
██ Signed, ratification declined.
██ No position.
Mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is a 'cap and trade' system that allows for emission credit trading between nations. The cap placed on countries is calling for a required 5.2 percent reduction in overall emissions by 2008-12 over the 1990 standards [10]. Opponents of the Kyoto Protocol say that the standards set are unrealistic. However, there are three methods being used to help stimulate green investment and help countries meet their emissions goals in cost-effective ways. These mechanisms include Emissions Trading, Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Implementation (JI), all which contribute to the feeling of a free-market approach for controlling greenhouse gases. The Protocol sets emission reduction goals for each participating party and allots each party a certain number of emissions, or assigned amount units (AAUs).
The emission caps placed on countries are national caps; however some nations choose to place their emission standards on individual industries, such as power plants, to reduce the national emissions. This causes emissions trading to be analogous to a free-market system because it warrants trading of AAUs among countries. If one country has been efficient with its assigned amount of AAUs and has extra to spare, that nation can sell them to other countries in need of AAUs. The high volume of trading also helps keep the cost of AAUs down and allows for price tracking which in turn can help industries plan investments in the emission trading market. Joint Implementation, the second mechanism, is when an Annex I country invests in emission reduction projects in another Annex 1 country, which can ultimately earn the investing country more credits and can be used as a cheaper alternative to reducing domestic emissions. Most JI projects are done in the countries transitioning to a developed economy, where there is an emission reduction requirement. An example of a JI project may involve using a more efficient power plant rather than a coal-fired power plant. Instead of using AAUs, JI projects earn Emission Reduction Units (ERU), which are equivalent to one tonne of CO2 (UNFCCC, 2009) [1]. The third mechanism, Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), allows a country with an emissions limit to implement emissions-reducing projects in developing nations An example of a CDM project proposed by the UNFCC can be a rural electrification using energy-efficient boilers or solar panels (UNFCCC, 2009) [1]. This again can be used as a cheaper alternative to reducing emissions domestically, which can be more expensive in industrialized countries. Countries can earn Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits, also equivalent to one tonne of CO2 and can be used to meet the standards of the Protocol.
Other minor mechanisms in the protocol include Carbon Sinks and Emissions Banking. Carbon Sinks are areas that absorb carbon such as forests. They are beneficial to countries, especially high emitting countries, when calculating emissions because a country can subtract the amount of gas that is absorbed by a carbon sink from its total carbon emission. Countries can also gain credits in their favor by doing things, like planting trees, that add to carbon reduction (EPA, 2000) [6]. Emissions Banking is more beneficial to lower emitting countries because this allows for countries who emit less than the assigned target to bank the excess amount for the next period. This method also gives an alternative to selling excess emission credits through 'cap and trade'.
Rules for Developing Countries
The rules and requirements under the Kyoto Protocol for developing countries is different than for that of the developed. There is no set limit of greenhouse gas emissions for the developing countries because they were not the ones contributing to the 150 years of industrial activity that resulted in such high levels of greenhouse gases. Developed countries account historically and currently for the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions, while per capita emissions of developing countries are relatively low (UFCCC, 2008) [1]. Another reason for why there is no set limit for developing nations is because in order for them to increase their quality of life, it is believed they will eventually need more advanced forms of technology resulting in an increase in energy consumption, thus emitting more greenhouse gases. It is believed that this will ultimately allow developing countries to acquire its social and developmental needs.
Although there is no specific emissions reduction standard set for developing nations, the Kyoto Protocol does entail commitments and overall obligations for them to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is known as common but differentiated responsibilities for developing countries (UFCCC, 2008) [1]. One method for developing countries to participate is through the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows developed nations to implement emission-reducing projects in their country. This mechanism serves as synergetic because not only does it help developing nations earn carbon credits for a cheaper price, but it also enables developing nations to utilize new and clean technology that they would normally not have access to otherwise.
The different standards set for both the developed and developing nations by the Kyoto Protocol has initiated controversy, especially in the United States. As mentioned above, the U.S. has signed, but does not intend to ratify the standards of the Protocol. One suggested explanation is the Protocol’s requirement exemption of China, which today is the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases (Brahic, 2007) [4]. President Bush argued that the reduction in greenhouse emissions should be something that deserves “100% effort” and refusal to participate in a “flawed treaty” should not be called “an abdication of responsibility” (Estonia, 2001) [5].
Carbon Tax
A potential alternative to the 'cap and trade' method currently used by the protocol is through a carbon tax. This tax is based on the amount of carbon contained in a fuel such as coal which has the highest carbon amount compared to other fossil fuels [10]. The aim of this tax is to cause less fossil fuel use and hopefully cause an incentive to use other sources of energy. If the carbon tax was implemented it would be gradual and start at a low amount and increase over time to allow better industry and technology to be developed. Some areas such as British Columbia and Quebec as well as Boulder Colorado have already implemented carbon taxes. In Boulder the tax only equates to roughly $1.30 a month showing how minuscule this tax can be [9].
The Carbon Tax Center also lends five primary reasons why a carbon tax could prove more beneficial than the ‘cap and trade’ system being used [8].
1. Predictability – the tax could help predict energy prices which might also help investments in energy efficiency and alternate fuels.
2. Implementation - a carbon tax could be put into use much quicker compared to the legalities that go along with the ‘cap and trade’ method.
3. Understandable – the carbon tax is simpler to understand and may therefore be embraced more by everyday people
4. Lack of Manipulation – special interest groups have less of a chance to manipulate a carbon tax because of its simplicity.
5. Rebates – like other forms of taxes, the carbon tax could be open for rebates to the public
Non-compliance and Penalties
Like most things in life, failure to comply with the Protocol carries penalties. If a country does not meet the requirements for measurements and reporting said country looses the privilege of gaining credit through joint implementation projects. If a country goes above its emissions cap,
and does not try to make up the difference through any of the mechanisms available, then said country must make up the difference plus an additional thirty percent during the next period [10]. The country could also be banned from participating in the ‘cap and trade’ program.
What the US is doing to reduce CO2 emissions?
While the United States has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it is still working towards a similar goal. In 2003 the Governor of New York, then George Pataki, made contact with other state goverments in the Northeast with the intent of cutting back on carbon emissions. In 2005 seven states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, and New Jersey) signed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) pledging to reduce their carbon emissions. In January 2007 Massachusetts and Rhode Island rejoined after leaving the Initiative mid-conception in earlier years, and then Maryland joined as well later that year.
The Goal of RGGI was to cause all abiding states to reduce stabilize their emissions, through the cap and trade system, by 2015 as compared to a 2002-2004 average. Furthermore, by 2020 that value is to be reduced by 10%. Of these values 50% could be mitigated by purchasing offsets. Although simply stabilizing the number, and then a 10% reduction does not seem large, it is estimated that the overall emission with the program is a 35% decrease when compared to the estimated trends without the program.
On the other side of the country the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) was formed in 2007 for the same reason. Arizona, Montana, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, British Colombia, and Manitoba all entered into the Initiative in 2007 with Ontario and Quebec both joining the following year. Starting in 2012 the program aims to reduce the overall carbon emissions of these states and provinces by 15% in 2020.
In the Midwest, another group of local governments are just now stepping up to solve the carbon crisis. Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois and Kansas, as well as the Canadian province of Manitoba have started an organization set with coming up with their own solution for controlling CO2 emissions that is accordant to their region's needs. Called the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord (MGGA) the program is currently working on setting up the exact rules for emission reduction.
Between these three organizations 23 states and 4 provinces have, or will soon be, making commitments to reduce CO2 emissions, it is beginning to look like a national effort. The federal government isn't completely out of the picture though, on March 25, 2009 the US Department of Transportation issued that it would be giving up to 100 million dollars worth of grant money to State Transportation Departments that develop programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or reduce energy consumption.
References:
[1] "Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratification." United Nations Framework of Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/application/pdf/kp_ratification.pdf (21, Mar. 2009).
[2] Country Analysis Briefs. United States Energy Information Administration. http://web.archive.org/web/20080113002100/http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Full.html (21, Mar. 2009).
[3] "Byrd-Hagel Resolution." The National Center for Public Policy Research. http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html (21, Mar. 2009).
[4] Brahic, Catherine. “China’s Emissions May Surpass U.S. in 2007.” New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11707 (22, Mar. 2009).
[5] Embassy of the United States. “President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change.” Estonia. http://estonia.usembassy.gov/discussion.ph. (11, Jun. 2001).
[6] White House Task Force of Climate Change. "Global Warming - Publications: Fact sheet on the Kyoto Protocol." http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsKyoto_99.html. (21, Mar. 2009).
[7] Carbon Tax Center. "What's a carbon tax". http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/#what. (20, Mar. 2009).
[8] Carbon Tax Center. "Tax vs. Cap-and-Trade". http://www.carbontax.org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/. (20, Mar. 2009)
[9] Carbon Tax Center. "Where carbon is taxed". http://www.carbontax.org/progress/where-carbon-is-taxed/. (20, Mar. 2009)
[10] Environmental Chemistry (text book)